Granting that the design of the book was simply to describe love, we deny that it would have been deemed unworthy of a place in the sacred canon. Why should the pleasures of chaste love be considered less worthy of record in the sacred books, [[104]]than the sorrow for bereaved friendship, in 2 Sam. i. 17, &c.? “To those,” says Dr. Mason Good, a defender of the allegorical interpretation, “who disbelieve the existence of such an allegory they (the amorets) still afford a happy example of the pleasures of holy and virtuous love; they inculcate, beyond the power of didactic poetry, the tenderness which the husband should manifest for his wife, and the deference, modesty, and fidelity with which his affection should be returned; and, considered even in this sense alone, they are fully entitled to the honour of constituting a part of the sacred Scriptures.”[144] “Why should a passion,” remarks another allegorical interpreter, “so strong, so universal, so essential to happiness—to the very existence of the human race, be denied a place in a Revelation from God to man? As a matter of fact, has it not a place in every part of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation? God is the author of the human constitution as well as of the Bible; and he has in all respects adapted his revelation to the nature of the beings for whom it was designed. It would be strange indeed, if one of the most important and never absent phenomena in the moral and physical creation of men should never be noticed in a revelation to him from his Creator. If the viciousness and licentiousness of men have loaded this subject with vile and filthy associations in vile and filthy minds, this is not the fault of God or of his revelation. The vine will not be destroyed, nor the grapes annihilated, because wicked men make themselves beasts with wine.”[145]
The design of the book, in our view, however, is not to celebrate love, but to record an example of virtue, which is still more worthy of a place in the sacred canon.
2. It has been urged, that the language put by the sacred writer into the mouth of the bride, shows that the poem is to be allegorically interpreted, because in its literal sense such [[105]]language would be contrary to nature and to the modesty of women.
“That this is not a song of human loves,” says Dr. Bennett,[146] “is clear from the beginning to the end. It opens with the language of a female: ‘Let him kiss me;’ it is full of her solicitous seeking after him; it abounds with praises of his person, and her dispraises of herself, of her person and her conduct; it invites other females to love him, and it speaks of him as her brother, and of her as his sister. Let any one examine the Song, and then muse over these facts, recollecting that Solomon is, in the opening of the poem itself, said to be the writer. Was ever such a human love-song composed by mortal, since man either loved or wrote verses? What writer, with the feelings, or the reason, of a man, would begin a poem on his fair one by describing her as courting him? Let it not be said, ‘We must not transfer our modern and northern ideas to the ancient Orientals, who had not our delicate notions of the female character;’ for this would only make my case stronger. It would be more abhorrent from the secluded, submissive character of Eastern brides to ask the gentlemen to come and kiss them, than it would be from the dignified confidence of British women. It is not a question of climate or age, but of nature. The bridegroom, who is supposed to love this fairest of women, himself puts into her lips this speech: ‘Let him kiss me!’ Never would human love speak thus. Though men like to court, they do not like to be courted; and while they think it cruel to be rejected when they court, they without mercy reject her that courts them; as the forward female has usually found, from the days of Sappho to this hour. Women were endowed with the form and the qualities intended to attract courtship, and they feel it; and when they do not feel it, men despise them. No man, therefore, in his senses, would think to compliment his fair one by writing of her, to her, as if she had lost her retiring modesty, her female dignity, and degraded [[106]]herself by doing that for which every man would despise her. The very first word of this Song, then, stands a witness against the notion of its being a human love-song; for it would better suit Solomon’s strange woman, that with an impudent face caught and kissed the young simpleton, than Solomon’s princess-bride, or Dr. Smith’s supposed chaste monogamist. Till fishes mount to sing with larks on the shady boughs, and nightingales dive to ocean’s depths to court the whales, no man, of any age, of any clime, of any rank, can be supposed to write ordinary love-songs in such a style. We are told, by the first word, that a greater than Solomon is here, one who must be courted, and that loves more than human are the theme. This is the Bridegroom of whom the Psalmist says, ‘He is thy Lord, and worship thou him:’ ‘Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way.’ Such a spouse may exhibit his Bride as asking for his love; every other must present himself as asking for hers, and begging the acceptance of his.”
It is allowed by scholars of taste, that, regarded as a mere human production, this poem is inimitable. “Every part of this Song,” says the learned Bishop Bossuet,[147] “abounds in poetical beauties; the objects which present themselves on every side are the choicest plants, the most beautiful flowers, the most delicious fruits, the bloom and vigour of spring, the sweet verdure of the fields, flourishing and well-watered gardens, pleasant streams, and perennial fountains. The other senses are represented as regaled with the most precious odours, natural and artificial; with the sweet singing of birds, and the soft voice of the turtle; with milk and honey, and the choicest of wine. To these enchantments are added all that is beautiful and graceful in the human form, the endearments, the caresses, the delicacy of love. If any object be introduced which seems not to harmonize with this delightful scene, such as the awful prospect of tremendous precipices, the wildness of the mountains, [[107]]or the haunts of lions, its effect is only to heighten, by the contrast, the beauty of the other objects, and to add the charms of variety to those of grace and elegance.” Bishop Lowth, after having descanted upon some passages, remarks, “Nothing can be imagined more truly elegant and poetical than all these, nothing more apt or expressive than these comparisons.”[148] If the poet is so charming in his style, so exquisite and true in his picture of nature, surely it is but reasonable to give him credit for understanding his art, that he was acquainted with the manners and habits of the women of his age, and that he would be as true to nature in the description of the bride as he is in depicting nature herself. If it be true that language of such exquisite taste would outrage female decency and modesty when addressed to a human love, it will surely be more outrageous when put into the mouth of the humble, penitent, and submissive Church in addresses to the Lord of lords. Where in the Old or New Testament do we find any address from the saints to God or Christ resembling the opening of this poem? The addresses of Abraham, (Gen. xviii. 23–33,) Jacob, (Gen. xxxii. 10–13,) and of Solomon himself, (1 Kings viii. 23–53,) and the language in which Christ has taught us to appeal to God, are characterized by the greatest reverence and humility. How, then, can it be affirmed, that language which would violate female modesty and decency in the mouth of a woman to a lover whom she prizes above all things, is becoming in the mouth of the Church when addressing the Holy One of Israel?
Dr. Bennett, however, misunderstood the design of the book. The Song, in its literal meaning, does not begin with representing a woman courting a man, but describes how a humble and virtuous rustic maiden was taken away from her beloved into the court of Solomon, and tempted to transfer her affections, by the splendour and luxuries of royalty; but even there, amidst all the grandeur, and in spite of all alluring promises, the [[108]]maiden was faithful to her espousals, and desired that he whom she prized above all things would come and rescue her.
3. It is urged that the same language and imagery employed in the Song, and the bridegroom and the bride here introduced, are elsewhere spiritually applied to the Lord and his people.
“This sort of imagery,” says Professor Stuart, “is frequent in the Old Testament, and in the New. Frequently are the Jews charged with ‘going a whoring after other gods,’ Exod. xxxiv. 15, 16; Lev. xx. 5, 6; Numb. xv. 39; Deut. xxxi. 16; 2 Chron. xxi. 13; Ps. lxxiii. 27; Ezek. vi. 9. Here the idea is, that they were affianced to the true God, and could not seek after idols without incurring the guilt of adultery. So God calls himself the husband of the Jews, Isa. liv. 5. The nation of Israel is his bride, Isa. lxii. 4, 5. In Isa. l. 1, Jehovah asks, ‘Where is the bill of divorcement’ on his part, that Israel has departed from Him? Jeremiah speaks of the espousals of Israel, when young, in the wilderness.
“In Jer. iii. 1–11, the prophet speaks of Israel as playing the harlot, and committing adultery, in forsaking Jehovah. In Ezekiel, two long chapters (xvi., xxiii.) are occupied with carrying through the imagery drawn from such a connexion. Hosea (i.–iii.) recognises the same principle, and carries out the imagery into much detail. These are merely specimens. Ps. xlv. presents the Mediator, the King of Zion, in the attitude of a husband to the Church, and celebrates the union between the former and the latter. So in the New Testament this imagery is very familiar: see Matt. ix. 25; John iii. 29; Rev. xix. 7; xxi. 2. Especially consult 2 Cor. xi. 2, and Eph. v. 22–32, where the Apostle has gone into much particularity as to the duties of the marriage relation, and then avows that he ‘speaks concerning Christ and the Church.’
“Such is the custom of the Hebrew writers and of the Apostles. If, now, this imagery is so often employed in all parts of the Bible, what forbids the idea, that there may be one short book in which it occupies an exclusive place, and is designed to [[109]]symbolize the love that existed between God and his ancient people, or the Church; or rather, which ought to have existed on their part between God and his spiritually regenerated people, who have become one (in a spiritual sense) with him, and are for ever united to him? It cannot be shown, à priori, that it is even improbable.”